Including Information on the Therapeutic Window in Bioequivalence Acceptance
- 169 Downloads
A novel bioequivalence limit is proposed taking into account the therapeutic window.
The therapeutic range is introduced as the ratios maximum tolerated dose/therapeutic dose (MTD/D) and the therapeutic dose/lowest effective dose. The performance of the new acceptance range was compared with the methods of Schuirmann and Karalis. The method was retrospectively applied to data of three drugs with a narrow therapeutic window (phenytoin, theophylline and digoxin).
Simulations and examples show that the resulting bioequivalence limits are (1) narrow for narrow-index drugs, (2) expanded for highly variable drugs with a wide therapeutic window and (3) similar to the classical limits for less variable drugs with a wide therapeutic range.
The approach has the desirable property of resulting in a more narrow acceptance range for doses near the boundaries of the therapeutic window and a wider acceptance range for products with a broad therapeutic window.
KEY WORDSaverage bioequivalence bioavailability individual bioequivalence therapeutic window
Financial support from the IAP Research Network P6/03 of the Belgian Government (Belgian Science Policy) is gratefully acknowledged.
- 4.Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP), the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA). Note for guidance on the investigation of bioavailability and bioequivalence. (2001).Google Scholar
- 5.Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP), the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA). Concept paper for an addendum to the note for guidance on the investigation of bioavailability and bioequivalence: evaluation of bioequivalence of highly variable drugs and drug products. (2006).Google Scholar
- 6.U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Guidance for Industry: Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Studies for Orally Administered Drug Products- General Considerations. (2003).Google Scholar
- 7.M. Gibaldi, and D. Perrier. Pharmacokinetics. New York, Marcel Dekker, (1982).Google Scholar
- 8.F. Hsuan. Some statistical considerations on the FDA draft guidance for individual bioequivalence. Stat. Med. 19:2879–2884 (2000). doi: 10.1002/1097-0258(20001030)19:202879::AID-SIM552>3.0.CO;2-9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.P. Macheras, and A. Rosen. The bioequivalence factor. Pharm. Acta Helvetiae. 58(8):233–236 (1983).Google Scholar
- 13.Ministry of Health, Canada. Bioequivalence requirements: critical dose drugs. Ministry of Health, Canada, 2006.Google Scholar
- 15.D. Martin, D. Tompson, S. Boike, D. Tenero, B. Ilson, D. Citerone, and D. Jorkasky. Lack of effect of eprosartan on the single dose pharmacokinetics of orally administered digoxin in healthy male volunteers. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 43:661–664 (1997). doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2125.1997.00608.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.J. Pinheiro, and D. Bates. Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. Springer, Berlin, 2000.Google Scholar
- 19.D. Santos Buelga, M. J. Garcia, M. J. Otero, A. Martin Suarez, A. Dominguez-Gil, and J. C. Lukas. Phenytoin covariate models for Michaelis–Menten pharmacokinetics in adult epileptic patients. Page meeting, Paris, (2002).Google Scholar
- 23.J. Wagner. Fundamentals of clinical pharmacokinetics. Drug Intelligence, Hamilton, 1975.Google Scholar